@Miles_Brundage: Surprised to not see more commentary on this excerpt from the Opus 5.5 blog post: "We largely understand the risks toda…
Summary
A tweet critiques a statement from Anthropic's Opus 5.5 blog post, arguing that the claim about understanding and managing today's AI risks is obviously false.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 09/25/26, 02:38 AM
Surprised to not see more commentary on this excerpt from the Opus 5.5 blog post: “We largely understand the risks today’s models present and are well equipped to manage them.”
Seems obviously false, regardless of whether “we” means the world or Anthropic?
Similar Articles
One of AI’s Fiercest Critics Says All the Doom Talk Is ‘Meant to Distract Us’
An interview with AI researcher Timnit Gebru critiques the AI industry's emphasis on existential risks, arguing it distracts from real harms, amid recent incidents involving OpenAI and Anthropic.
@hopes_revenge: this whole post is very worth reading
A tweet sharing Dan Selsam's personal statement on AI risk, where he discusses his views as an OpenAI capabilities researcher.
@YouJiacheng: > the vast majority of risks are from the creation of the model and not from its deployment.
A tweet discusses an essay from a DeepSeek engineer on AI model risks, highlighting potential disagreements between OpenAI and Anthropic about model access and safety.
@Miles_Brundage: Makes ya think
The tweet points out a misperception that independent evaluators and auditors in AI safety aim to substitute for regulatory oversight, which they do not see themselves doing.
Personal Statement on AI Risk (12 minute read)
An AI researcher from OpenAI expresses deep concerns about the escalating risks of language models, arguing that current oversight measures are inadequate due to models' increasing situational awareness and potential for misalignment.